What is light?

[EarthlingX]

I'm still confused. 10e-6 what? You're asking for a measure of curvature... right?

I m struggling with a language a bit, please forgive me. Maybe i should've use used a word 'proportion' ?
( curvature of time space from energy from momentum of orbiting visible mass in a galaxy) / (curvature of time space of orbiting visible mass) ? This makes sense ?

 

[ramparts]

Kind of. What's the difference between those two things? "Energy from momentum"? I'm still not sure what you mean.

Also, are you talking about the curvature caused by an entire galaxy, or the curvature caused by some individual part of a galaxy?

 

[EarthlingX]

Kind of. What's the difference between those two things? "Energy from momentum"? I'm still not sure what you mean.

Also, are you talking about the curvature caused by an entire galaxy, or the curvature caused by some individual part of a galaxy?

Visible matter orbiting central region has some kinetic energy stored in it's momentum, that's what i m talking about. Does it curve a time-space ? That stored kinetic energy in momentum of stars and gas orbiting central black hole?

I m getting a bit in unfamiliar territory with this, but something like :

( 1/2 * Mvm * Vo * Vo) / (Mvm cc) - > (1/2 * Vo * Vo) / c * c

Mvm= mass of galaxy visible mass, Vo= orbiting speed, c speed of light
This makes sense ? :roll:

 

[ramparts]

Hey, no worries I think we're just using terms in different ways. So matter doesn't "store" kinetic energy in momentum - it has kinetic energy, and it also has momentum. They're both quantities calculated using the mass and velocity of an object, and they're both things we can use to talk about its motion. Sometimes one is useful, sometimes the other.

It's really mass that curves spacetime (technically energy does as well, but that's not important unless we're talking about relativistic matter, or matter traveling really fast - as in, not most of the matter in galaxies ).

The second thing is that while a galaxy on the whole curves spacetime a lot, individual pieces within it don't really do all that much. So what are you interested in - the curvature caused by a whole galaxy, or caused by one star, or two stars, etc.?

 

[calycadi]

A review of the theories regarding mass and energy reveals that the underlying idea in both mass and energy is motion.

Einstein put forth the idea of the equivalence of mass and energy. He based this proposition on his discovery of the "connection" with the classical idea of K.E. (i.e., kinetic energy or the energy of motion).

His famous formula for E=mc2 could not have been understood in the manner he put forth without that "connection" to the idea of K.E.

Because the E or energy in Einstein's famous formula is the idea of 'kinetic' energy or 'energy of motion', then it must be that mass is also 'kinetic' mass or 'mass of motion'.

We therefore have 'kinetic' mass and 'kinetic' energy, since mass and energy are equivalent.

Kinetic means motion. Therefore the uderlying idea in both mass and energy is motion. Now, that is saying that both mass and energy are forms of motion.


To answer your question, light is simply a form of motion within space.

As we understand it, electromagnetic radiation is the transverse wave motion of the electric field and magnetic field vibrating at the same frequency and at right angles to each other.

In the 2-D translation, the transverse wave motion is characterized by a rotation along the axis of translation, which allows an explanation for the blueshifts and the redshifts while maintaining the same speed of light c.

The 3-D translation of the electromagnetic radiation is a bit tricky. The 3-D translations suggest the condensation of kinetic energy into particulate mass and the other way around which is the conversion of mass into radiant energy.

Perhaps you should explore first the rather new ideas put forth in the theory of kinematic relativity.

The new theory of kinematic relativity advocates the idea of the relativity purely of motion, which thus departs from the idea of relativity of space and time (spacetime relativity).

Checkout http://www.kinematicrelativity.com/ - this website tops the current google and yahoo searches for the phrase "kinematic relativity" ...

 

[ramparts]

You know, I once had a website about purple baboons, and it also topped the Google searches for "purple baboons". It was a pretty great idea I had, the purple baboon theory!

I must admit, I've always found it strange that some people think the next great idea in physics will come from a website and an internet forum.

 

[EarthlingX]

Hey, no worries I think we're just using terms in different ways. So matter doesn't "store" kinetic energy in momentum - it has kinetic energy, and it also has momentum. They're both quantities calculated using the mass and velocity of an object, and they're both things we can use to talk about its motion. Sometimes one is useful, sometimes the other.

The second thing is that while a galaxy on the whole curves spacetime a lot, individual pieces within it don't really do all that much. So what are you interested in - the curvature caused by a whole galaxy, or caused by one star, or two stars, etc.?

I think you just pulled that answer out of me I appreciate it, it was fun :lol:

It's really mass that curves spacetime (technically energy does as well, but that's not important unless we're talking about relativistic matter, or matter traveling really fast - as in, not most of the matter in galaxies ).

If you are talking about spacetime, isn't relativistic matter implied ? Is mass curving the space-time, independent of a reference frame ? Why wouldn't energy, 'stored' or 'conserved' or a quantity of an observed system, be considered more basic to the nature of spacetime curving than a mass ? I mean, down there, it's just nothing, spinning around madly, up and down and weird, that causes the effect of a mass, right ?

 

[ramparts]

Relativistic matter isn't implied at all! There are two types of relativity, general relativity (which is the theory of gravitation) and special relativity (a subset of GR talking about very fast things). So we call very fast things "relativistic", but things don't have to be relativistic to curve spacetime. After all, the Earth is non-relativistic, and it curves spacetime just fine... as we see by the fact we're stuck in our chairs

 

[darkmatter4brains]

Because the E or energy in Einstein's famous formula is the idea of 'kinetic' energy or 'energy of motion', then it must be that mass is also 'kinetic' mass or 'mass of motion'.

the E=mc^2 equation gives the energy for a rest mass, i.e mass at rest ... it's not attributed to the motion of the mass at all.

The full equation, which isn't nearly as popular, is more like E= mc^2/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)). If you do a binomial expansion on this, you'll see that the first term is rest mass, the second term is K.E., followed by higher order terms. So E=mc^2 is just part of the picture - the rest mass part.

It's also seen in this form: E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (mc^2)^2. as you can see if set p=0 (p is momentum), you get the old familar E=mc^2 back again. m is the rest mass. You can also see that a photon carries momentum (p=E/c) from this, by setting m =0, since a photon has no mass.

Or, maybe, I just misunderstood what you meant??

 

[darkmatter4brains]

as we see by the fact we're stuck in our chairs

So it's gravity's fault I'm stuck in this chair sitting in this cubicle? damn gravity!

 

[MeteorWayne]

I'd be a little careful about cursing gravity. Without it, you'd be floating in space, frozen like a brick, with no fluids in your body, dead as a doornail.

There are some positive aspects, eh?

 

[j_rankin]

I just had a thought about gravity and figured i'd post it here. Feel free to move it.

To try to understand gravity, i tried to think about what it gravity actually does.

Matter appears to be 'sucking' space towards it in the form of gravity. To me, it appears perhaps matter is consuming the space around it. In order for matter to sustain itself, it feeds in the space arround it, bringing the space closer.

What would happen if an amount of mass was too large to be sustained by the space around it? It would be forced to feed on matter instead, perhaps resulting in nuclear fusion.

Just an idea....any thoughts?

 

[csmyth3025]

I just had a thought about gravity and figured i'd post it here. Feel free to move it.

To try to understand gravity, i tried to think about what it gravity actually does.

Matter appears to be 'sucking' space towards it in the form of gravity. To me, it appears perhaps matter is consuming the space around it. In order for matter to sustain itself, it feeds in the space arround it, bringing the space closer.

What would happen if an amount of mass was too large to be sustained by the space around it? It would be forced to feed on matter instead, perhaps resulting in nuclear fusion.

Just an idea....any thoughts?

Over the course of history, in many civilizations, people have tried to conceptualize "how the world works". Indeed, Steven Weinberg - a well-known and respected physicist of many accomplishments - began the first chapter of his book The First Three Minutes by relating what seems to us a rather improbable Norse myth describing the beginning of the world. I'm sure this myth made perfect sense to the Vikings in their world at their time.

The notion that matter sucks up space is certainly no more weird than the currently accepted idea that matter distorts space (and time). But, as they say - "the devil is in the details". If you could construct a self-consistent, mathematically rigorous theory based on the idea that "matter sucks up space" there are serious scientists who would consider your theory "interesting". If your theory elegantly explained all of the observations upon which our present scientific understanding of the world is based, it would spark a debate that would linger for decades - much like the still on-going claims by some that Special and General Relativity are wrong. In the end there would develop a general consensus among the scientific community about whether your theory is "better" than any other theory.

Looking at things differently than the "accepted" way the world is viewed is the basis for most of what we think of as the advancement of science. It's a practice that should be encouraged in both the students and the teachers of science.

I found this quote which may help you to keep thinking in original ways:

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.
Marcel Proust
French novelist (1871 - 1922)

Chris

 

[EarthlingX]

I just had a thought about gravity and figured i'd post it here. Feel free to move it.

To try to understand gravity, i tried to think about what it gravity actually does.

Matter appears to be 'sucking' space towards it in the form of gravity. To me, it appears perhaps matter is consuming the space around it. In order for matter to sustain itself, it feeds in the space arround it, bringing the space closer.

Just an idea....any thoughts?

And dark matter around other galaxies is just a valley of the wave in some other dimension ?

Matter feeds on a time space to keep it's energy ?

 

[ramparts]

I just had a thought about gravity and figured i'd post it here. Feel free to move it.

To try to understand gravity, i tried to think about what it gravity actually does.

Matter appears to be 'sucking' space towards it in the form of gravity. To me, it appears perhaps matter is consuming the space around it. In order for matter to sustain itself, it feeds in the space arround it, bringing the space closer.

Just an idea....any thoughts?

And dark matter around other galaxies is just a valley of the wave in some other dimension ?

Matter feeds on a time space to keep it's energy ?

That is exactly what it is.

 

[csmyth3025]

I just had a thought about gravity and figured i'd post it here. Feel free to move it.

To try to understand gravity, i tried to think about what it gravity actually does.

Matter appears to be 'sucking' space towards it in the form of gravity. To me, it appears perhaps matter is consuming the space around it. In order for matter to sustain itself, it feeds in the space arround it, bringing the space closer.

Just an idea....any thoughts?

And dark matter around other galaxies is just a valley of the wave in some other dimension ?

Matter feeds on a time space to keep it's energy ?

That is exactly what it is.

There are several concepts proposed above, ramparts. Which one is exactly what what is?

Chris

 

[ramparts]

Both of them! Both "dark matter around other galaxies is just a valley of the wave in some other dimension" and "matter feeds on a time space to keep it's energy". I don't know why physicists never thought of those before

 

[calycadi]

Re: What is light?
by ramparts » Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:30 pm
Both of them! Both "dark matter around other galaxies is just a valley of the wave in some other dimension" and "matter feeds on a time space to keep it's energy". I don't know why physicists never thought of those before
Both of them! Both "dark matter around other galaxies is just a valley of the wave in some other dimension" and "matter feeds on a time space to keep it's energy". I don't know why physicists never thought of those before

These ideas that you have must be from the 'purple baboon' idea that you mentioned.

Physicists' actually have thought about something similar and discussed it with the formal scientific approach supported by mathematical explanations.

Had you taken a better look at http://kinematicrelativity.com/ you'd have read some of the formal presentations.

The underlying idea, assuming we are talking about the curvature caused by gravity, consists of the principle of the relativity of motion and its application to the gravitational tensor which is accelerative. The idea put forth is simply that all gravitational masses are accelerating with a three-dimensional acceleration. Perhaps, you could understand and picture that out.

The idea of the acceleration of the gravitational masses has been discussed before in the Physlink forums sometime in 1999-2000. Unfortunately, Anton Skorukak's Physlink forum files are no longer accessible - the website harddisk must have crashed.

J. V. Narlikar, G. Burbidge and the late Fred Hoyle also dealt with the idea in peer-reviewed papers sometime in 1990s with revisions in the 2000s.

You said you "don't know why physicists never thought of those before" - they have thought about something more appropriate and have written about it but not in the rather unqualified, meaningless terms you use.

 

[EarthlingX]

Re: What is light?
by ramparts » Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:30 pm
Both of them! Both "dark matter around other galaxies is just a valley of the wave in some other dimension" and "matter feeds on a time space to keep it's energy". I don't know why physicists never thought of those before
Both of them! Both "dark matter around other galaxies is just a valley of the wave in some other dimension" and "matter feeds on a time space to keep it's energy". I don't know why physicists never thought of those before

These ideas that you have must be from the 'purple baboon' idea that you mentioned.

Physicists' actually have thought about something similar and discussed it with the formal scientific approach supported by mathematical explanations.

Had you taken a better look at http://kinematicrelativity.com/ you'd have read some of the formal presentations.

The underlying idea, assuming we are talking about the curvature caused by gravity, consists of the principle of the relativity of motion and its application to the gravitational tensor which is accelerative. The idea put forth is simply that all gravitational masses are accelerating with a three-dimensional acceleration. Perhaps, you could understand and picture that out.

The idea of the acceleration of the gravitational masses has been discussed before in the Physlink forums sometime in 1999-2000. Unfortunately, Anton Skorukak's Physlink forum files are no longer accessible - the website harddisk must have crashed.

J. V. Narlikar, G. Burbidge and the late Fred Hoyle also dealt with the idea in peer-reviewed papers sometime in 1990s with revisions in the 2000s.

You said you "don't know why physicists never thought of those before" - they have thought about something more appropriate and have written about it but not in the rather unqualified, meaningless terms you use.

Thank you for references and links. Very enlightening
I m off to read some of this ... :shock:

 

[EarthlingX]

http://kinematicrelativity.com/
I sounds like creationism, but it is not really, i think. It just uses word 'god' like 'dark matter' or 'dark energy', some concept, about which we yet don't know enough, but resemblance is close.

Could it be, that we are sinking in our local gravitationally bound environment into before mentioned extra dimension, causing effect of accelerating universe and dark matter ? Matter pulled out of chaos into existence in between because of rising potential (higher part of curvature in that dimension) ? And when that strain is too great, BAMM ! all around us ?
Are galaxies that have more dark matter older, because they sunk deeper ? And they sunk deeper because they were feeding on the time-space longer ?

Did i miss physical definition of god or does it say god is everything and everyone and everywhere and even behind ? :roll: :?
Me is you and you is me and we are all together ?
Is speed of information faster than speed of light ?

Do i need to see my shrink ? :? :roll:

 

[j_rankin]

If gravity can bend light, and light cannot escape black holes, then gravity must also slow light down and speed it up (correct me if im wrong about this).
That means that within intergalactic space, where gravity is lower, light travels faster, and when light reaches another galaxy, it gets even faster as it approches.
That would also mean that the further away light is from its original source, the faster it would be travelling when it reached us, and the gravity of our galaxy would increase the velocity even further, amplifying any affect, thus creating the appearance of an accelerating universe.

 

[MeteorWayne]

You are wrong about this. Light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum along the path of spacetime.

 

[EarthlingX]

You are wrong about this. Light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum along the path of spacetime.

Thank you for landing us :lol:

 

[ramparts]

Indeedy - gravity's "pulling" effect on light doesn't manifest itself as a change in the speed of light, it shows up as a change in the wavelength ("stretching" the waves) - we call it gravitational redshift.

 

[MeteorWayne]

You are wrong about this. Light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum along the path of spacetime.

Thank you for landing us :lol:

Hey, you asked, I answered.